maddogs hideaway

Welcome to Maddogs hideaway, The poormans predictor. Somedays I just feel like ridin...!

Name: MADDOG10
Location: North Jersey
Country: United States
Interests: restoring old cars, winning the lottery, avid football fan, and riding my motorcycles... Both (Harleys)...!!

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Here America: Have Some More Filth to Go with that Government

Here America: Have Some More Filth to Go with that Government

John Ransom | Aug 18, 2014

John Ransom

Yes, the Democrats are that desperate. Smacked with the guy who has made his business to lead the loyal opposition to policies that hurt the country, the Democrats did something so foul, so mind numbingly stupid and so desperate that it out Nixoned Nixon in his worst of days. And in doing so, they’ve completed the transformation from political party to caricature.

Does Rick Perry's indictment disqualify him for 2016?!!! asks CNN, while fronting for the Dems. No, the indictment probably does not disqualify him. But Marco Rubio’s sip of water during a televised address should, right? Rubio’s problem was that he couldn’t get a grand jury to indict him on anything after he sullied the republic with a parched throat.

“The indictment and possible trial of Texas Gov. Rick Perry for allegedly applying illegal coercion to a district attorney will complicate -- but not kill,” writes Errol Louis at CNN, “his all-but-certain run for President in 2016. It's a sure bet that voters outside of Texas will forgive, ignore or overlook any outcome short of a conviction.”

With analysis like that, he should be named Error Louis.

Look, the indictment by Perry is a stupid move by the Dems, and nothing will come of it that needs forgiving—at least for Perry.

In fact, he’ll be applauded, lauded and lionized by the many people who rightly think government is out of control.

Perry, it seems, committed the unpardonable sin of holding the DA responsible for drunkenness. How dare mere mortals hold the people responsible for prosecuting crimes to a standard that applies to the rest of us?

Getting past the fact that this is the same DA’s office that indicted Tom DeLay on wholly political charges—charges that have been subsequently overturned by a higher court—the indictment only served to prove the point: You can’t trust these guys.

Because the people who indicted Rick Perry are the people who are going to decide if you complied with Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank, or the 70,000 pages of corrupt tax code that’s aimed at you. Or complied with any one of a number of mind-boggling rules and regulations that come out in the federal register every single day.

Heads they win and tails you lose, as long as you keep voting for them.

And don’t even think that you can make a case that a grand jury is responsible, not the DA for the indictment. The DA had to put on a case for the grand jury. And the only way they could do that was by bending, breaking and botching the law so badly that it can only be interpreted politically not legally.

“Perry did not want to influence the DA,” writes legal scholar Henry Mark Holzer on his blog, “He wanted her gone. The governor of Texas was commendably trying to coerce the drunken, abusive, irresponsible, literally unethical DA to resign.”

The indictment, says Holzer, should be quashed.

It won’t be.

Because in the contest to run America for the foreseeable future, the Democrats have so mismanaged and bungled their chance to make a case for themselves that their only choice is to criminalize the opposition.

They think that makes them the more powerful party.

But they are wrong.

In the book Primary Colors, political idealists are turned from purely idealistic opposition to Richard Nixon, into power-hungry presidential wanna-bes who would force the country to eat more filth than even Watergate generated in order to gain power.

And yes: In the book they did gain power thereby. The Clintons-- upon whom the story is based—gained power that way too in real life.

And in real life the same mechanisms that brought them to power will deprive these Democrats of power.

Because the desperation the Democrats are showing isn’t a policy. It’s an indictment. And yes, they really are that dumb.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Pretty much sums this up also.!!

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Monday, August 18, 2014

Barack Obama's Zero Sum World

Barack Obama’s Zero Sum World

Star Parker | Aug 18, 2014

Star Parker


Investopedia defines a “zero sum game” as “a situation in which one person’s gain is equivalent to another’s loss, so the net change in wealth or benefit is zero.”

If a political leader wielding power sees the world as a zero sum game – gains to one must mean a loss to another – it is likely that this leader will promote policies that will limit growth, wealth creation and innovative problem solving.

What a zero sum worldview will produce more of is political, class, and ethnic resentment and strife.

It so happens we have a leader today that has this worldview and his name is Barack Obama. It is not surprising that today’s world over which he is presiding, at home and abroad, increasing shows these characteristics.

President Obama was very candid in a recent interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times in which he stated his zero sum view of the world.

“Obama made clear,” Friedman writes, “that he is only going to involve America more deeply in places like the Middle East to the extent that different communities there agree to an inclusive politics of no victor/no vanquished.”

There you have it. No suggestion that there is right and wrong, or better answers that make everyone better off and worse answers that don’t. No, in our president’s take on the world, if there is a winner who winds up better off there must be a loser who winds up equally worse off.

The president then made clear that he views the world through this zero sum lens at home as well as abroad.

According to him, notes Friedman, “…we (America) will never realize our full potential unless our two parties adopt the same outlook we’re asking of Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds or Israelis and Palestinians: No victor, no vanquished and work together.”

This “inclusive” world view, devoid of right and wrong, true and false, better and worse, stands starkly in contrast to what Abraham Lincoln had to say when confronting a nation torn apart by the question of whether it would tolerate slavery.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand,” said Lincoln. “I believe this government cannot stand, permanently, half slave and half free...It will become all one thing or all the other.”

The president’s “no victor, no vanquished” take on the world is turning up the flames of the Israeli Palestinian conflict by legitimizing the falsehood that if Israelis are better off it means that Arabs will be worse off.

It perversely forces the Israelis to sit and negotiate with Hamas – an organization that even the United States officially designates as a terrorist organization.

Author George Gilder characterizes the Middle East conflict as “not between Arab and Jews but between admiration for achievement, along with a desire to replicate it, and envy accompanied by violent resentment.”

Gilder describes how the inflow of Jewish settlers in the last century transformed Palestine for the benefit of all.

“Between 1921 and 1943,” he writes, “Jews quadrupled the number of enterprises, multiplied the number of jobs by a factor of 10, and increased the level of capital investment a hundredfold.”

“Far from displacing Arabs,” continues Gilder, “ they (Jews) provided the capital for a major expansion of Arab farms and enabled a sevenfold rise in Arab population by 1948.”

Zero sum politics plays out in similarly destructive ways in our own country. Instead of building a culture of achievement and responsibility, politicians of the left stoke grievances of low income Americans, inspire envy and resentment, and teach that the poor are poor because the rich are rich.

By stoking these politics of envy and victimhood, it’s the politicians, at home and abroad, who grow powerful and wealthy. The disenfranchised languish as political pawns, never hearing the truth that life is about making correct personal choices in an imperfect world.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

The New Republican Party

The New Republican Party

Bruce Bialosky | Aug 17, 2014

Bruce Bialosky

The political world has been abuzz with speculation about the Senate races and whether the Republicans will take over majority of the Upper House. While this was happening, I spent my time finding out what was really afoot within the Republican world.

This all started when I had the opportunity to see a presentation by Andy Barkett, the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) first Chief Technology Officer. What I was listening to piqued my interest. It is as if the RNC had finally come alive. I wrote a column about the challenges facing the party during the turmoil after the 2012 election and the election of Reince Preibus as the Chairman of the RNC, reinstalling Mr. Preibus as the head of the party. Having actually worked on the past four presidential elections, I have seen first-hand the capabilities of the party and what was needed to win. In that column, I advocated a vertically-integrated system that used the assets of the RNC to aid in the election of offices down to the local sheriff with information flowing back up to the national party. This seemed to be what I was hearing from Barkett, but I wanted to explore the status of the party’s information capabilities more.

That brought me to an interview with Chuck Defeo, the Chief Digital Officer and Deputy Chief of Staff of the RNC. Defeo, a Political Science graduate of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, somewhat fell into being a tech guy. He started working for then-Senator John Ashcroft in 1996, when all those late nights of computer geeking led him to organizing the computer side of the Senator’s operations. Defeo used that as a springboard to other political tech gigs, which then landed him as the person who organized the digital efforts for the 2004 Bush reelection campaign. Those were the days when the Republicans were ahead in the organizing game. Since then, the Obama campaigns have left the Republicans behind in their efforts to turn out voters, raise money and win elections.

So what did Defeo find when he came on board last July? Surprisingly, he found a very positive attitude -- a willingness to change and improve with the goal of helping Republican candidates win in 2014, thus building toward 2016.

The perception of the Republicans falling behind was because of two reasons as stated by Defeo. First, the RNC has had four different leaders since 2004 and there was a perceived underfunding in the technology area over that period. Second, in the two Presidential election cycles, Obama had a billion dollars. In 2012, they had barrels of money plus they had a four-year run-up to the election to put their team and strategy in place. I spent 12 days in Columbus, Ohio, just prior to Election Day, and one could see and feel the advantages the Obama team had over Romney’s -- just 90 days in existence since winning the nomination. As for looking ahead, Defeo told me “The DNC just received the data from the Obama campaign last year, and they will not have a billion dollars in 2014.”

The test case for the work being done by Defeo and his team was this year’s March 13th special election in Florida for the 13th district Congressional seat. In this race David Jolly, a Republican, beat the favored Democrat Alex Sink, a former gubernatorial candidate. The voter contact done by the RNC was very precise as Defeo told me they got within 415 votes of their targeted absentee votes from a list of over 20,000. This very effective campaign and the turn out the vote effort allowed Jolly to surprise Sink and take the seat by almost 2%.

Defeo and his team now have their focus on ramping up that effort to compete in thousands of races across the country. It is a large task, the results of which we will see on November 4th. As for integrating the network from the RNC down to the local races, Defeo stated “The database has been built. We need to improve access to the data for our candidates and reception of data back from those candidates and their campaigns.”

It is clear that the RNC has taken the commitment to create a first-class technology base to provide the tools for Republican candidates to compete in every race in the country. We will soon see whether the fruits of their efforts overcome the prior technology advantage Obama’s team created for the Democrats. These things swing like a pendulum and we will know soon whether they have swung back.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Oh Yes, This is That Good):"Needed: A President with Testicular Fortitude"

Needed: A President with Testicular Fortitude

John Ransom | Aug 17, 2014

John Ransom

ericynot1: Ransom once again has lambasted the BO admin, this time for its policies vis-a-vis Russia's Ukraine adventure. That's fine. But I'm left wondering what he thinks the right policy would be if we had a different president. It sounds as though Ransom thinks it's some sort of military operation ("force"). But what exactly? Bomb Russia? Bomb eastern Ukraine? Mass U.S. troops along the Belarus-Ukraine border (as though anyone would allow that)? Send a flotilla of Navy ships into the Black Sea? Drone attacks on Donetsk? Criticism is OK -- so long as you have a better idea about what to do. But I haven't seen that here today. And, frankly, I'm not sure there is a better idea.- A Policy So Bizarre, So Obama

Dear Comrade Y1,

The better idea would be to have a president who has some gonads and some sense of proportion.

Obama’s a guy who wears a bike helmet for safety reasons—for him—while telling the rest of us to disarm—for safety reasons—for the government.

Speaking of disarming, the time to have discouraged Russia would have been before they started trouble in Eastern Ukraine.

There were a number of ways we could have done that. Instead we choose to unilaterally disarm.

We should have built the missile defense system in the Ukraine. We should have admitted Ukraine to NATO. We should have completed a status of forces agreement with Ukraine that pushed the West’s NATO frontier from Germany into Poland and Ukraine. We shouldn’t have given the Russians a “reset” button on US-Russia relations. We should have helped them be less dependent on Russian energy, by supplying…wait…American energy to the country.

Those were all policy alternatives open to the administration, but since we can’t seem to even supply Americans with American energy resources, it’s no wonder Obama rejected these common sense proposals.

What would I do now?

I’d commit a division of troops, say the Third Infantry Division, to the parts of Ukraine not currently involved in the fighting. I’d speed up war material and aid to Ukraine including training in counter-insurgency operations. I would order the shootdown of the next Russian military aircraft that “accidently” penetrates into US airspace probing our North American defenses.

I’d ban commercial flights from Russia into the United States. I’d seize Russian state assets here in the US, including marketable securities in Russian owned companies. I’d make it illegal for Russian companies to raise money in American capital markets. I’d kick the Russian ambassador out of the country, close down their consulates.

I’d encourage a group of radical, free market economics students who are studying Austrian economics at George Mason University, under the leadership of professor Peter Morici at the University of Maryland, to seize and hold hostage for 444 days the entire Russian embassy compound including the staff even to the Russian janitors.

Pusillanimity is not a substitute for policy.

Obama says he wants peace. But Obama’s version of “peace” includes war thrown in for good measure, at the most disadvantaged circumstances.

Syria, Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine: These are all victims of a president who has no testicles.

If I had a million dollars I'd pay a million dollars tomorrow* for a reporter to ask Obama is he even still has a set of balls. I mean for playing basketball.

*This offer expires at midnight August 15th 2014 and is contingent upon the author, me, John Ransom, receiving donations in the amount of $2 million, which can be directed to this publication's corporate offices.

Thank you.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Reagan vs. Obama: The Largest Tax Cut in American History Remembered

Reagan vs. Obama: The Largest Tax Cut in American History Remembered

Ashley Pratte |

Ashley Pratte

Today marks the 33rd anniversary of the signing of the Economic Recovery Tax Act by President Reagan at his beloved Rancho del Cielo.


The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was one of the signature pieces of legislation during Reagan’s tenure as President. The bill cut taxes by 25 percent for every American, the largest tax cut in American history.


President Reagan made it a point to sign this historic piece of legislation at his humble ranch home nestled away in the mountains outside of Santa Barbara. He recognized that the power rested with the people and not the bureaucrats in Washington. By signing the document at Rancho del Cielo, he sent the message to the country that he was a President who had the people’s best interests at heart.


Once these tax cuts were implemented, youth unemployment plummeted. Youth unemployment began at 18.8 percent under Reagan and fell to 10.7 percent by the end of his Presidency. Reagan believed in economic freedom and the idea that every individual should have the opportunity to prosper if they worked hard.


Compare that to today. Youth unemployment sits at a high of 18.1 percent with no hope of improvement. Millennials are now realizing their post-graduation employment opportunities are slim. Currently six million young people are idle, which means they are neither attending school nor working. Others are living at home, working part-time jobs, barely able to afford their monthly student loan payments. How will this generation be able to prepare for retirement or save to buy a house or achieve their “American Dream?”


Today’s young people deserve better than the current President offers with his detrimental economic policies. Young people were some of Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters, but now the reality of their support is burdensome. The promises of free healthcare and employment after college never came to fruition. The reality is that Reagan’s signature piece of legislation helped young people and led to a long period of economic growth, whereas Obama’s signature legislation, Obamacare, is killing jobs and creating economic hardship for many Americans-- especially millennials.


Reagan recognized that Washington’s power needed to be limited and controlled which is vastly different than the viewpoint of the current President, who constantly puts more power in the hands of federal bureaucrats. Ronald Reagan is quoted as famously saying, “The government isn’t the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.” Obama’s policies have created little to no opportunity for America’s youth. His policies are the problem.


President Reagan was a champion of young people and truly believed in enacting initiatives that created a bright future for them. On this anniversary of the largest tax cut in American history, let us renew our commitment to Reagan’s lasting accomplishments by advancing the principles of economic freedom, individual liberty, and opportunity.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Hillary's Biggest Whopper: "I am Not an Obama Clone"

Hillary's Biggest Whopper: "I am Not an Obama Clone"

Donald Lambro | Aug 15, 2014

Donald Lambro

WASHINGTON - We haven't heard the last of Hillary Clinton's attempts to separate herself, and her expected presidential candidacy, from Barack Obama's policies.

Her stinging put down of Obama's impotent foreign policies in Iraq and elsewhere were just the beginning of a carefully plotted campaign to persuade enough Americans that she's not an Obama clone.
From the beginning, the number one problem that faced her long-planned candidacy is that she would follow in the footsteps of a failed presidency. Indeed, she could already hear the Republicans' 2016 campaign cry: "If you liked the Obama administration, you'll love what Hillary wants to do."
Clinton's politically choreographed remarks earlier this week, in an interview with the Atlantic magazine, were but the first of many artful dodges to come.
Dredging up Obama's long-forgotten description of his strategic foreign policy as "Don't do stupid stuff," she shot it down with this well-executed attack line:
"Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' in not an organizing principle," she said.
Clinton, whose timid, vacuous, super cautious record as secretary of State was mediocre at best, disgraceful at its worst, is the last person to talk about organizing foreign policy principles.
She made a lot of speeches around the globe, and it is reported that she disagreed with Obama's escalated pull-out from Iraq and the way it was carried out. But she was loyal to his misguided policies, carried them out, and now is squirming over having to defend them.
Still, her record on foreign policy matters is not one that that demonstrates she's ready to make foreign policy as the nation's chief executive.
Let's start with the scandal in Benghazi, Libya, where the U.S. ambassador and and three other Americans were killed in the Consulate there in a full-scale terrorist attack. After a thorough investigation, the record shows her State Department ignored numerous pleas from the ambassador for added security there.
The larger scandal that followed was made worse when her State Department's initial response to the well-planned attack blamed it on a protest over an anti-Islam, YouTube video that, in its words, "got out of hand."
Months later, when Clinton was called to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the deadly events, she delivered her "What difference does it make" line that will haunt her future presidential campaign.
When she was running for president against Obama in 2008, she went after his inexperience in a TV campaign ad about the White House crisis phone ringing in the middle of the night and who was there to answer it.
"There's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something is wrong in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether someone knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead. It's 3 a.m. Who do you want answering the phone?" the ad says.
But when U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was calling on Hillary for added security in the face of growing terrorist threats, she didn't pick up the phone to help him.
She was too busy jet-setting around the world, chasing former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's record of logging more miles than any previous secretary of state.
But what did Clinton accomplish over the course of her empty-handed, four-year term in office? Nothing. The Middle East is a fiery, blood-soaked battleground. Al-Qaeda terrorists and their spin-off armies are on the brink of seizing control of Iraq and Afghanistan, making inroads in Syria and across North Africa. Vladimir Putin has seized Ukraine's Crimean peninsula and threatens yet another military push into that war-torn country's eastern half.
Now, as Clinton continues her book promotion tour, she is attempting to divorce herself from that record, avoiding the key question of what did she do in the world of foreign relations to make the world a better place?
It is reported that she called Obama after the interview to apologize, but she isn't backtracking on her criticism of his strategic policy positions.
She was in Martha's Vineyard Wednesday -- where the president is on a two week vacation -- for a book signing at the Bunch of Grapes Bookstore and planned to attend a private party fundraiser there. When she was asked at the bookstore if she disagreed with Obama's handling of the crisis in Iraq, she merely replied, "I'm excited about signing books."
When asked about their relationship, she said, "We are committed to the values and the interests of the security of our country together. We have disagreements as any partners and friends, as we are, might very well have."
But those disagreements likely run far deeper that may be evident right now.
There are some here who say that Clinton has serious problems with Obama's economic policies. She has built strong political alliances on Wall Street and is said to think that major policy changes are needed to boost economic growth and job creation.
When she and Obama were running against each other in the party primaries, one of her key advisers told me she did not agree with Obama's call for raising taxes while the economy was still in a recession.
But it remains to be seen what her ultimate views are on a wide range of these and other domestic issues, and how they could impact on her candidacy in the remaining two plus years of Obama's presidency.
One thing is clear, however. No matter how much she tries to politically divorce herself from Obama's policies, her chances of winning the White House will be affected by them.
What if Obamacare collapses financially because it has not signed up enough younger, healthier people? Or an uneven economy and job market worsens in the months to come? Or the rise of global terrorism poses a much more lethal threat to the U.S.?
That's when Americans will rise up and say, we've had enough of the Democrats. It's time for a change.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Judge Issues New Order to IRS: Your Excuse For "Lost" Emails is Invalid

Judge Issues New Order to IRS: Your Excuse For "Lost" Emails is Invalid

Posted: 8/15/2014 3:05:00 PM EST

After listening to excuses from IRS officials about why they cannot produce "lost" emails requested through a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has ordered the IRS to come up with a better explanation as to why the agency cannot produce valid documentation. He's also asking for details about IRS hard drive destruction policy and wants verification from an outside source that IRS hard drives in question were in fact destroyed as officials have claimed.

"In an extraordinary step, U. S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan has launched an independent inquiry into the issue of the missing emails associated with former IRS official Lois Lerner," President of Judicial Watch John Fitton said in a statement. "Previously, Judge Sullivan ordered the IRS to produce sworn declarations about the IRS email issue by August 11. Today’s order confirms Judicial Watch’s read of this week’s IRS’ filings that treated as a joke Judge Sullivan’s order."

From Judge Sullivan's order:

In light of [26] the Declarations filed by the IRS, the IRS is hereby ORDERED to file a sworn Declaration, by an official with the authority to speak under oath for the Agency, by no later than August 22, 2014. In this Declaration, the IRS must: (1) provide information about its efforts, if any, to recover missing Lois Lerner emails from alternate sources (i.e., Blackberry, iPhone, iPad); (2) provide additional information explaining the IRS's policy of tracking inventory through use of bar code property tags, including whether component parts, such as hard drives, receive a bar code tag when serviced. If individual components do not receive a bar code tag, provide information on how the IRS tracks component parts, such as hard drives, when being serviced; (3)
provide information about the IRS's policy to degauss hard drives, including whether the IRS records whose hard drive is degaussed, either by tracking the employee's name or the particular machine with which the hard drive was associated; and (4) provide information about the outside vendor who can verify the IRS's destruction policies concerning hard drives.

The IRS has one week to come up with some answers.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Obama's Son Looks Like Ferguson

Obama’s Son Looks Like Ferguson

John Ransom | Aug 15, 2014

John Ransom

Well Obama’s had a son after all.

It’s a strapping, weighty and very unhealthy mixture of the pent up discontent that is Obama’s America.

Yes, the man who once race-baited by pretending that Trayvon Martin was his own son, now dead and gone, is definitely the father of this version of our country. The likeness and resemblance is too striking for him not to be.

Congratulations Daddy!

“On Wednesday night,” reports the New York Times, “scores of police officers in riot gear and in armored trucks showed up to disperse protesters [in Ferguson] who had gathered on the streets near the scene of the shooting [of Michael Brown, 18]. Some officers perched atop the vehicles with their guns trained on the crowds while protesters chanted, ‘Hands up, don’t shoot.’”

Hands up, don’t shoot is good advice. Even for a big mouth president.

Because in my lifetime I’ve never seen a president shoot off his mouth so recklessly than Obama has…except of course in times when he all he does is shoot himself in the foot.

When he’s too busy for example dancing, vacationing, campaigning, or raising money—which, not coincidentally, are all activities that look alike to Obama—then the man whose mouth operates like Joe Biden’s shotgun, isn’t necessarily saying anything reckless, but rather doing reckless things instead.

“President Obama must really be teed off,” writes Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, “Hillary Rodham Clinton, his once-loyal secretary of state and his likeliest successor, has gone rogue, criticizing his foreign policy as too timid.”

So Obama got mad and went to play golf. Twice.

That’s because Obama’s on a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, “a decision that, if not in the category of stupid stuff,” concludes Milbank, “could fit under the heading of ‘tone deafness.’”

I’m trying to decide which is worse for the country: Obama saying reckless things or doing reckless things?

Because as stupid and harmful as his inane chatter is to the country, the president has difficulty accomplishing even the tasks he presumably cares about, like a foreign policy that works. So “doing reckless things” has not always been very effective for Obama.

But, I gotta go with the “doing reckless things” option as the worse of the two right now.

I think that going on vacation is the best thing that Obama can do today. Because this child that is the Ferguson riots was not born of talk, but in the hosing of America by Obama and the rest of his firemen. The riots are the violent fruits of the womb that are born when a country gets screwed—hard.

And guess what? It only takes one time for the country to get a little bit pregnant. What’s being born of our times ultimately, however, no one can really tell as of yet.

Yet this much is true though: Angry children tend to give birth to angry children, and the sins of the fathers are visited on the latest generation.

“A nation like a woman is not forgiven the unguarded hour,” wrote Karl Marx, in one of the few true statements Marx got right, “in which the first rake that tries can take her by force.”

Obama hasn’t gotten what he wanted by talking. He hasn’t gotten what he wanted by actions either, reckless or otherwise because he's too lazy.

There always remains force however as an option of any government in crisis, especially a government too lazy to be legitimate.

And make no mistake: This is a government deep in crisis and too lazy to be legitimate.

So guard the hour my friends.

And keep Obama on vacation. Let him screw his handicap and not the country.

Friday, August 15, 2014

He wants to know if this guy can spare a couple.

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Thursday, August 14, 2014

# 2. This is a MUST watch, if you care about The direction America is going...!!

Thursday, August 14, 2014

This is a MUST watch, if you care about The direction America is going...!!

Thursday, August 14, 2014

The Three Stooges of the Apocalypse

The Three Stooges of the Apocalypse

John Ransom | Aug 14, 2014

John Ransom

The Middle East isn’t just a foreign policy problem it’s another one of the man-caused disasters that has become the hallmark of the Obama administration’s version of Moe, Larry and Curly.

And the cause of the disaster is transparently clear: These stooges are all campaign and no common sense.

Because the amigos tres in this instance haven’t just been poor executives-- as they have shown in other policy-- they’ve been poor thinkers as well. That they are hurting Muslims in Iraq and the Middle East -- a group they say they stand in solidarity with-- is immaterial to them. Campaigning for these stooges has always come before common sense.

That’s why secretary of state John “Larry” Kerry-- who was for the Iraq war before he was against it while he was campaigning for president-- is secretary of state; and perhaps the worst secretary of state ever if you discount the last secretary of state, who also was for the Iraq war before she was against it.

“This is not a combat, boots-on-the-ground, operation in Iraq,” said Defense Secretary, Chuck “Curly” Hagel—another guy who was for the war before he was against it-- all while he ordered 130 more US boots on the ground.

So let’s just say that the campaign is never ending, and thus common sense is still quite uncommon with our foreign policy stooges.

So uncommon in fact that Barack “Moe” Obama can’t even admit what we all know to be facts.

When confronted with the fact that he promised to remove US troops from Iraq, then kept that promise, and then claimed he ended the Iraq War by removing the troops-- while really he was destabilizing the country—Moe had this to say:

“What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision,” said Obama about the decision to end the US troops that stabilized Iraq. “Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there.”

Let’s just be clear, shall we?

It was Moe—and Kerry and Curly-- who claimed from the campaign trail in 2008 that Iraq was just a sideshow, the surge wouldn’t work, and that the real US troop surge needed to happen in Afghanistan. It was Moe—and Kerry and Curly -- who said the Bush administration made a mistake in not pursuing Osama bin Laden, like somehow bin Laden’s death would make a difference. It was Moe-- and Kerry and Curly -- who pulled troops out of Iraq after the surge worked and INTO Afghanistan, even though we know now that Moe— and Kerry and Curly -- didn’t want troops in either country.

So why are they sending troops in now?

Because they are stooges, that’s why.

I’m not sure what it is that theses stooges think they accomplishing for the Muslim world, or for America, but if Obama-- and Kerry and Curly—have something to offer in the Middle East besides an apocalypse now and more apocalypse later and even more apocalypse later still, they should cut the vaudeville routine.

Their slapstick is a painful substitute for statesmanship.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

One can only wish...

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Obama's Foreign and Domestic Policy: When the Going Gets Tough, Go on Vacation

Obama's Foreign and Domestic Policy: When the Going Gets Tough, Go on Vacation

Donald Lambro | Aug 13, 2014
Donald Lambro

WASHINGTON - President Obama is on a two-week vacation in Martha's Vineyard, as wars rage across the Middle East and Ukraine, terrorists threaten to topple Iraq, and Republicans are on the brink of capturing the Senate.

Around the country, a deepening mood of anger and anxiety permeates America's electorate, with the midterm elections a mere three months away.

And in a brewing political civil war among Democrats, Hillary Clinton has unleashed a sharp attack on Obama's timid foreign policy, calling for a more muscular response to the spread of global terrorism.

The president's job approval scores remain in the low 40s and show no signs of improvement on the problems voters are angry about -- from jobs, incomes, the budget deficits and a rash of disturbing government scandals that have exposed an incompetent and corrupt administration.

"There is a lot of angst about whether this country is continuing to provide an opportunity to live the American dream," says Democrat Ted Strickland, former governor of Ohio. "The overarching concern is an economy that is not providing an opportunity for working people."

Hurtling toward the fall elections, the Democrats' political prospects, and Obama's presidency, were sinking fast.

Republicans have a political lock on the House and had a better than even chance of taking over the Senate where they need only six seats to make Harry Reid the minority leader.

Last week, those chances improved significantly when Democratic Sen. John Walsh of Montana announced he will not seek election in the wake of a story broken by The New York Times that said he had plagiarized portions of a paper he wrote at the U.S. Army War College.

According to the Times, the six recommendations he made in a foreign policy study were "taken nearly word-for-word without attribution from a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace document on the same topic."

Democrats will choose a new candidate next week, but the chances of mounting a credible campaign and raising enough money to be competitive were bleak. Before the scandal broke, polls showed GOP Rep. Steve Daines running ahead of Walsh by double digits.

This means Democrats were behind the eight ball in at least three seats their party held but that were now open due to retirements: Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota, and to some extent a fourth in Iowa.

So Republicans will need just three more seats to take control, and there were at least five (and possibly a dozen) competitive contests to get them there: Colorado, North Carolina, Louisiana, Alaska and Arkansas.

What is the coming midterm campaign going to look like when it gets underway on Labor Day weekend?

No doubt Obama will be fully engaged, but he is no longer the political force he once was. Indeed, many Democrats will not want to be seen with him in red states like South Dakota, Louisiana, West Virginia or Montana, to name but a few.

Democrats are desperately sinking piles of money into voter turnout to counter the GOP wave, but their turnout will be well below what it was in 2012.

Voter intensity is stronger in the GOP, and even among independent voters, than it is among Democrats. That'll be an overriding factor on Nov. 4.

Next will be the Democrats' message, if they have one that resonates. Right now, it doesn't appear they do.
Obama ground tested several carnival barker pitches this year -- including income inequality -- only to discover they didn't resonate with voters.

Neither does Obama's insistence that the economy is doing much better since the recession. Many Americans, including large numbers who have dropped out of the work force or who are in part-time jobs but need full time work do not believe that for a moment.

Then there's the pessimism factor. No matter what he says about an improving economy, he hasn't been able to persuade skeptical Americans who believe that economic conditions will be worse in the future.

Recent Gallup surveys reported that confidence in the U.S. economy fell significantly last month.

One attack line Obama will continue to hammer will be against Congress for not acting on his threadbare agenda. Or, he claims, not even offering any legislation of their own to deal with the country's problems.

In truth, House Republicans have sent more than 300 pieces of legislation to the Senate where they have been summarily shelved by Reid.

Obama wants voters to think that it's the Republicans in the House who are holding things up, as he threatens to take executive action, with or without Congress's support.

It is all play acting of course. Over the decades, most of the bills the House sent to the Senate have been routinely placed in limbo, according to that has gone back and study the legislative flow.

The website's findings: More than 50 percent of the bills sent to the Senate in 11 of the last 19 Congresses had not received action by the time Congress finished its business and went home.

The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave us a lengthy, delay-prone, legislative system filled with plenty of procedural obstacles to keep bad bills from becoming law. What Obama's complaining about is that Congress won't pass his bad laws.

But what about the GOP's election agenda? That's not getting anywhere near the public attention it deserves.
Partly because the national news media tends to ignore Republican proposals or distorts what they would do.

And partly because the GOP leadership has done a poor job of explaining, promoting and selling its ideas.

A national TV ad campaign explaining how their ideas would unlock the power of job-creating capital through tax reform, expand trade, lower gas prices, cut the deficit and step up new business formation would be a good place to start. Backed up, of course, by its candidates.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Remember, Vietnam started the same way...

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

The K Street President

The K Street President

Michelle Malkin | Aug 13, 2014

Michelle Malkin

Wonder of wonders: The Washington press corps woke up.

Finally, mainstream journalists are onto Barack Obama's game. Their breaking-news shocker? Turns out all that "hope and change" stuff was just hot air. A new report from the D.C.-based press shows that -- gasp -- the White House is infested with Beltway lobbyists.

Good morning, sleepyheads!

According to Politico's analysis published on Monday, the "Obama administration has hired about 70 previously registered corporate, trade association and for-hire lobbyists. And many of these former lobbyists work at the highest levels of government."

Wait, there's more. The "most transparent administration ever" is playing disclosure-dodging renaming games to hide lobbyists' grubby paw prints. By officially de-registering as corporate lobbyists and morphing into "consultants," "counselors" or "advisers," Obama's K Street operators can maintain the fiction of upholding the Great Agent of Change's grand ethics pledge.

Remember: Back in the day, candidate Obama assailed the K Street crowd with righteous (or rather, left-eous) zeal. "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over," he thundered in 2007. In one of his first executive actions, he declared that the White House had closed "the revolving door that allows government officials to move to and from private sector jobs in ways that give that sector undue influence over government."

But the reform-peddling candidate soon found it impossible to practice what he so sanctimoniously preached. Now, Obama depends on their "strategic advice" and Beltway wisdom. Here's the White House's chortle-inducing rationalization for elevating Broderick Johnson (husband of friend of the Obamas and NPR anchor Michele Norris, and longtime Democratic lobbyist for Microsoft, Pearson, JPMorgan Chase, Comcast, Fannie Mae and FedEx) as a top aide:

"The pledge does not bar anyone with prior lobbying experience from serving in this administration," an Obama spokesman told "Broderick has substantial experience working in the Clinton administration, on the Hill and in the private sector in a variety of capacities, as well as on the president's campaign. We welcome that mix of experience."

That "mix of experience" also includes veteran Beltway lobbyist Cecilia Munoz, formerly of the National Council of La Raza and consultant to the Mexican government, who is now assistant to the president and director of the Domestic Policy Council -- along with revolving-door beneficiaries Melody Barnes, Marc Berejka, Bradley Gillen and Sean Kennedy, all lobbyists turned Obama bureaucrats turned lobbyists again.

When Republicans hire lobbyists, it's a culture of corruption and influence peddling. When Obama hires lobbyists, it's a celebration of experience diversity.

Of course, these double standards and this double talk were clear from the outset. As I pointed out in my book "Culture of Corruption" five years ago this summer, the business-as-usual writing was on the wall from Day One. As soon as he was elected, Obama threw open his doors to the nation's leading lobbyists and professional D.C. back-scratchers:

Attorney General Eric Holder was registered as a lobbyist at Covington and Burling. Tim Vilsack, former Iowa governor and Obama's first agriculture secretary, was a registered lobbyist for the National Education Association. Ron Klain, Vice President Joe Biden's first chief of staff, was a lobbyist at O'Melveny and Myers. Leon Panetta was a lobbyist-lite who raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporations in "consulting fees." Former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson served as chief of staff to former Treasury Secretary-turned-lobbyist Tim Geithner.

But now the K Street president is news?

Like the old saying goes: There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.